Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Stormonu]

And if you think Ranger/Fighter doesn't make any sense, I have a one word answer to it: Drizzit.

Huhn, I'd always thought they had statted Dritz as 100% ranger, but I'd only ever casually glanced at his stats.

 

[Sammael]

Drizzt was triple-classed the last time I looked at his stats - a Fighter (to reflect his drow noble training) / Barbarian (to reflect the years he spent wandering the Underdark by himself, half-mad) / Ranger (when he became Montolio's disciple).

Likewise, Elminster is a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard.

That's why multiclassing is important, it shows character growth and development.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Just to echo what some others here are saying - any debate here about only having 4 or fewer "base" classes is completely academic at this point, because that's not going to happen in Next. The original plan was to start with every class that has ever been a D&D base class, and carve it down from there where necessary.

Fighters may or may not have built-in "styles" that subdivide the class (like wizard traditions, rogue schemes, and cleric domains do to varying degrees).

Monks have already been written up as a 5e class, and Mearls said they were the "easiest" class to design. That was a few weeks ago in that big Redditt thread, but it seems unlikely they'd toss it out completely without a darn good reason.

Warlocks have also been written up as a class, with unique spellcasting mechanics (something do do with at-will powers that can be powered up into encounter powers). Warlords, however, are still in flux, but seem to have been carved up into one or more themes. (These were mentioned in the latest PA podcast.)

Additionally, 3e-style multiclassing will be possible, and I can't imagine they'd let it be as finicky and broken as it was in 3e. (In other words, a fighter/monk SHOULD be a viable character build.)

Personally, I fully expect bards, barbarians, monks, rangers, and paladins all to be separate classes, and that none of them will use the fighter's unique CS mechanic. I also fully expect that barbarians and monks will have unique mechanics. Rangers, paladins, and bards may or may not be 3e-style demi-spellcasters, but I for one hope at least rangers and paladins do not have Vancian spells.

I also really hope that the monk class has built-in styles so that I could play a "mystic swordsman" with the class.

 

[drothgery]

Just to echo what some others here are saying - any debate here about only having 4 or fewer "base" classes is completely academic at this point, because that's not going to happen in Next. The original plan was to start with every class that has ever been a D&D base class, and carve it down from there where necessary.

It was to start with every class that has ever been a base class in the first player's book of any edition of D&D, not every base class, period (which would have included dozens of classes from 3.5 and 4e). Which was unfortunate in my book, because the swordmage / duskblade / arcane warrior type deserves a core rules base class at least as much as the paladin / divine warrior type and never has gotten one (and is harder to do recreate with multiclassing than the divine warrior type).

 

[Meadyaon]

About the "What class does the Monk most resemble?" debate...

If you forget about D&D for 1 second, what's... (definitions drawn from Wikipedia):

1) A fighter? It's a person that's skilled in combat, whether through professional training (like a soldier) or not. That's it.

2) A cleric? It's a person that is a member of a religion clergy, whether a priest, pastor, etc.

3) A monk? It's a person who practices religious asceticism (a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures and/or pursuit of spiritual goals).

I don't know about you, but such a definition for the monk sounds a little more like a Cleric than either a fighter or a rogue/thief... Personally, when I read that Monk definition, the class that I think about most is... the PALADIN! Especially when you apply a little Shaolin sauce to the monk concept; and since it's by far the most popular interpretation of the class...

Really, IMHO, if I were trying to group the monk with one of the 4 base classes (and I'm not saying that I would), I'd group it with the Paladin. In my mind, they are the two (western and eastern) sides of the same coin.

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines a monk as a member of male religious order living in monastery or hermitage observing a common rule under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. IMHO that definition say that a monk would be cloistered cleric from Unearthed Arcana (3.5 IIRC) which is that i think when I think of the Eurocentric view of a monk. I think of the Monk class as being a martial artist with mystic abilities. Some of the Monk abilities would harnessed thruough use of Chi (basically a person's life energy).

The term "martial arts" may be defined as the art of combat that combines systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat utilizing various fighting techniques. These arts may be offensive for combat or defensive for self-defense. They may further be practices for personal, spiritual, health, sport, or other reasons. Many martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. While others adhere to a strict way of honor.